Sean Buckley
CNET 4/27/2021
Wash your hands. Wear a mask. Stand at least six feet away from others. These are the guidelines many of us have lived by for the past year, all of them suggested in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, MIT researchers are taking a closer look at the six-foot recommendation to see how effective social distancing really is.
Wash your hands. Wear a mask. Stand at least six feet away from others. These are the guidelines many of us have lived by for the past year, all of them suggested in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, MIT researchers are taking a closer look at the six-foot recommendation to see how effective social distancing really is.
© Provided by CNET New MIT study examines the benefit of wearing masks. James Martin/CNET
The short answer? In certain situations, six feet of distance isn't enough to protect you on its own and you should probably still wear a mask.
The real answer? That's a little complicated. The paper says that in "well-mixed spaces, one is no safer from airborne pathogens at 60 ft than 6ft," but the context of this statement depends on the size of the space, how well ventilated it is and what the persons in the room are doing.
Researchers specifically designed the study to mimic the conditions of certain kinds of indoor "superspreading events," such as the Skagit Valley choir practice that resulted in the infecting 53 of 61 attendees. In other words, researchers were only targeting the transmission of small aerosol droplets in a "well-mixed" indoor space with only moderate ventilation -- one where the air moves around frequently enough that potentially infected particles don't have time to settle.
The short answer? In certain situations, six feet of distance isn't enough to protect you on its own and you should probably still wear a mask.
The real answer? That's a little complicated. The paper says that in "well-mixed spaces, one is no safer from airborne pathogens at 60 ft than 6ft," but the context of this statement depends on the size of the space, how well ventilated it is and what the persons in the room are doing.
Researchers specifically designed the study to mimic the conditions of certain kinds of indoor "superspreading events," such as the Skagit Valley choir practice that resulted in the infecting 53 of 61 attendees. In other words, researchers were only targeting the transmission of small aerosol droplets in a "well-mixed" indoor space with only moderate ventilation -- one where the air moves around frequently enough that potentially infected particles don't have time to settle.
© Provided by CNET Martin Z. Bazant / John W. M. Bush
For example, the formula researchers devised for calculating indoor safety guidelines suggest that if an infected person was riding on a commercial airline with 100 other people, other passengers would be at risk of infection within 70 minutes. If all of the passengers wore masks, however, that space could be safe for up to 54 hours.
With data like that, it's possible to conclude the study says social distancing isn't effective, but the authors are quick to point out that the paper examines only one method of transmission under very specific conditions. In a statement, the researchers said that their findings had been "mischaracterized by some on social media and in the news," stating that the paper makes a point of calling out the benefits of social distancing and mask-wearing in conditions outside of the study's purview.
"The value of social distancing in limiting COVID-19 transmission by respiratory jets is made clear in the last section of our paper, 'Beyond the well-mixed room,'" they said. "Our study highlights that face masks can be an extremely effective indoor safety measure."
The researchers have built an online tool to help readers calculate how their formula estimates risk for differing room sizes, occupancy levels and mask-wearing behavior.
For example, the formula researchers devised for calculating indoor safety guidelines suggest that if an infected person was riding on a commercial airline with 100 other people, other passengers would be at risk of infection within 70 minutes. If all of the passengers wore masks, however, that space could be safe for up to 54 hours.
With data like that, it's possible to conclude the study says social distancing isn't effective, but the authors are quick to point out that the paper examines only one method of transmission under very specific conditions. In a statement, the researchers said that their findings had been "mischaracterized by some on social media and in the news," stating that the paper makes a point of calling out the benefits of social distancing and mask-wearing in conditions outside of the study's purview.
"The value of social distancing in limiting COVID-19 transmission by respiratory jets is made clear in the last section of our paper, 'Beyond the well-mixed room,'" they said. "Our study highlights that face masks can be an extremely effective indoor safety measure."
The researchers have built an online tool to help readers calculate how their formula estimates risk for differing room sizes, occupancy levels and mask-wearing behavior.
Staying 6 feet apart indoors does almost nothing to stop the spread of COVID-19, MIT study finds
mguenot@businessinsider.com (Marianne Guenot)
The widely used 6-foot rule does little to prevent COVID-9 exposure indoors, MIT researchers found.
The risk of exposure from an infected person is similar at 6 feet and 60 feet, one researcher said.
The study said mask-wearing, ventilation, and what a space is used for were bigger variables.
The widely used rule of staying 6 feet away from others does little to affect the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in indoor spaces, according to a new study out of MIT.
According to MIT researchers, the rule is based on an outdated understanding of how the coronavirus moves in closed spaces.
They said other variables - like the number of people in a space, whether they wear masks, what they are doing, and the level of ventilation - were much more important.
The 6-foot rule is used in various forms around the world: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises 6 feet of separation indoors and outdoors, while in the UK the figure is 2 meters. In much of Europe, the figure is 1 meter, which is also recommended as a minimum distance by the World Health Organization.
But while such distancing rules are easy to remember, and purport to suit any situation, the new study says they may not be that useful.
The study was released online ahead of its publication in the peer-reviewed journal PNAS on Tuesday.
It says a better way of controlling indoor exposure is to do individual calculations based on variables for that space.
In some cases, the exposure level might be the same at 6 feet as at 60 feet, one of the study authors has said.
Martin Bazant and John Bush, both MIT professors in applies mathematics, developed a formula to estimate how long it would take for a person to hit dangerous levels of exposure from one infected person entering a room.
The calculation is more sophisticated version of the traffic-light system previously proposed by MIT. It takes into account the number of people in the room, the size of the space, what they are doing, whether masks are being worn, and what kind of ventilation is in place.
Using this calculation, it could be that the level of exposure is high in some spaces even if people are more than 6 feet away. It could also be lower than expected.
"The distancing isn't helping you that much, and it's also giving you a false sense of security because you're as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you're indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually," Bazant told CNBC.
Scientific understanding of how the coronavirus moves in the air has challenged earlier assumptions about how best to adapt to minimize its spread.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it was widely believed that the virus traveled via heavier droplets ejected during exhalation, sneezing, or speaking.
But evidence has long suggested that the virus instead floats around on lighter aerosol droplets that can stay suspended in the air and travel much farther than first thought.
In their calculation, the MIT researchers took into account the effect of having people in the room, and their behavior, on how long the virus would stay suspended in the air.
In a calm environment, these particles would slowly drift to the ground, the researchers said in their study.
But in an environment in which the air is moving around the room and people are talking, eating, singing, and sneezing, the drops can be suspended in the airflow and mixed throughout the room longer.
The effect can be counteracted by ventilation or filtration to get the virus particles out of circulation in the room.
A website made available by the researchers shows how this model works in different scenarios.
For example, if an infected person walks into a classroom hosting 25 people, none wearing masks and all speaking, everyone would be at risk from the coronavirus within 36 minutes, the website says. It doesn't matter if they follow the 6-foot rule.
By contrast, if all 25 people in that room were wearing a mask, the air would be safe to breathe for 20 hours, it said.
If they were all singing without a mask, they be at risk from the virus within three minutes.
Public-health bodies have started to acknowledge that the 6-foot rule is not a catchall. In March, the CDC advised that the 6-foot rule could be brought down to 3 feet in K-12 schools.
This weekend, the CDC also updated social-distancing guidance for children in summer camps, saying they can be within 3 feet of one another except when eating or drinking.
It also suggested that disinfection of surfaces might not be necessary in public spaces, urging an end to what some have called "hygiene theater."
As for rules dictating social distancing outdoors, Bazant said they are "kind of crazy," CNBC reported. The infected air "would be swept away," Bazant said, making the rule irrelevant.
Unless the space outdoors is crowded, Bazant said, he would feel comfortable being as close as 3 feet even without masks.
Experts have told Insider that when it is possible to stay more than 6 feet away from people, wearing a mask outside is not always necessary.
Read the original article on Business Insider
mguenot@businessinsider.com (Marianne Guenot)
4/27/2021
© REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha
People eating behind individual plastic screens at a restaurant in Bangkok on May 8.
The widely used 6-foot rule does little to prevent COVID-9 exposure indoors, MIT researchers found.
The risk of exposure from an infected person is similar at 6 feet and 60 feet, one researcher said.
The study said mask-wearing, ventilation, and what a space is used for were bigger variables.
The widely used rule of staying 6 feet away from others does little to affect the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in indoor spaces, according to a new study out of MIT.
According to MIT researchers, the rule is based on an outdated understanding of how the coronavirus moves in closed spaces.
They said other variables - like the number of people in a space, whether they wear masks, what they are doing, and the level of ventilation - were much more important.
The 6-foot rule is used in various forms around the world: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises 6 feet of separation indoors and outdoors, while in the UK the figure is 2 meters. In much of Europe, the figure is 1 meter, which is also recommended as a minimum distance by the World Health Organization.
But while such distancing rules are easy to remember, and purport to suit any situation, the new study says they may not be that useful.
The study was released online ahead of its publication in the peer-reviewed journal PNAS on Tuesday.
It says a better way of controlling indoor exposure is to do individual calculations based on variables for that space.
In some cases, the exposure level might be the same at 6 feet as at 60 feet, one of the study authors has said.
Martin Bazant and John Bush, both MIT professors in applies mathematics, developed a formula to estimate how long it would take for a person to hit dangerous levels of exposure from one infected person entering a room.
The calculation is more sophisticated version of the traffic-light system previously proposed by MIT. It takes into account the number of people in the room, the size of the space, what they are doing, whether masks are being worn, and what kind of ventilation is in place.
Using this calculation, it could be that the level of exposure is high in some spaces even if people are more than 6 feet away. It could also be lower than expected.
"The distancing isn't helping you that much, and it's also giving you a false sense of security because you're as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you're indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually," Bazant told CNBC.
Scientific understanding of how the coronavirus moves in the air has challenged earlier assumptions about how best to adapt to minimize its spread.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it was widely believed that the virus traveled via heavier droplets ejected during exhalation, sneezing, or speaking.
But evidence has long suggested that the virus instead floats around on lighter aerosol droplets that can stay suspended in the air and travel much farther than first thought.
In their calculation, the MIT researchers took into account the effect of having people in the room, and their behavior, on how long the virus would stay suspended in the air.
In a calm environment, these particles would slowly drift to the ground, the researchers said in their study.
But in an environment in which the air is moving around the room and people are talking, eating, singing, and sneezing, the drops can be suspended in the airflow and mixed throughout the room longer.
The effect can be counteracted by ventilation or filtration to get the virus particles out of circulation in the room.
A website made available by the researchers shows how this model works in different scenarios.
For example, if an infected person walks into a classroom hosting 25 people, none wearing masks and all speaking, everyone would be at risk from the coronavirus within 36 minutes, the website says. It doesn't matter if they follow the 6-foot rule.
By contrast, if all 25 people in that room were wearing a mask, the air would be safe to breathe for 20 hours, it said.
If they were all singing without a mask, they be at risk from the virus within three minutes.
Public-health bodies have started to acknowledge that the 6-foot rule is not a catchall. In March, the CDC advised that the 6-foot rule could be brought down to 3 feet in K-12 schools.
This weekend, the CDC also updated social-distancing guidance for children in summer camps, saying they can be within 3 feet of one another except when eating or drinking.
It also suggested that disinfection of surfaces might not be necessary in public spaces, urging an end to what some have called "hygiene theater."
As for rules dictating social distancing outdoors, Bazant said they are "kind of crazy," CNBC reported. The infected air "would be swept away," Bazant said, making the rule irrelevant.
Unless the space outdoors is crowded, Bazant said, he would feel comfortable being as close as 3 feet even without masks.
Experts have told Insider that when it is possible to stay more than 6 feet away from people, wearing a mask outside is not always necessary.
Read the original article on Business Insider
No comments:
Post a Comment